Religion and public policy

Circumcision and the law

A clash of entitlements

THINK of an unlikely issue that unites Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, California's Governor Jerry Brown and France's President François Hollande. All three have defended the circumcision of male infants, as practised by Jews and Muslims. The latest intervention took the form of a letter from the Elysee Palace to Joel Mergui, the president of the central consistory of French Jews. "There is no question of placing in doubt an act which is symbolic in Judaism—and in other religions—as long as circumcision is practised within the existing legal framework," Mr Hollande declared, in a missive made public a few days ago.

The presidential letter was one of many strong reactions to a vote on October 1st at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) which seemed to draw some parallels between male circumcision and the vastly more contested practice known these days as female genital mutilation. The resolution expressed concern over a "category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters...tend to present as beneficial...despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes...female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood interventions in the case of intersexual children....."

On this point, the French president was clear: "France totally rejects the assimilation [into a single category] of the excision practised on young girls and the ritual circumcision of boys. An unacceptable form of mutilation with heavy physical and psychological consequences for the women who are subjected to it cannot be compared to a ritual practice which is widespread across the world and sometimes encouraged by the medical profession..."

In another response to the PACE vote, an Israeli legislator, Meir Sheetrit, went to Strasbourg this week and told a Council of Europe committee that the health benefits of male circumcision, apparently including a reduced risk of certain cancers, greatly outweighted the risks, such as infection. The Israeli foreign ministry has already described the anti-circumcision resolution (which is non-binding) as a casting a "moral stain on the Council of Europe" and promoting "hate and racist trends in Europe".

Last year Mrs Merkel raised her voice in defence of male circumcision after a local court in Cologne ruled that the circumcision of young boys amounted to the illegal infliction of bodily harm. Amid warnings from the chancellor that Germany could become a "laughing stock" if it outlawed such a basic religious rite, the federal legislature passed a law to protect the practice, as long as parents were informed about the slight risks.

California's Governor Brown signed a law in 2011 that stopped local authorities from banning male circumcision. This was in response to a growing movement in San Francisco to force a ballot which would have criminalised the practice of the ritual on minors. The Bay Area is a stronghold of a campaign known as "intactivism" started by men who say they were traumatised, psychologically as well as physically, by being circumcised in infancy.

It's hard to think of an issue that brings together so many of the passionate concerns of our times. On one hand, we hear a lot about cultural rights—the right of communities defined by religion, language or ethnicity to practise customs and rituals which give meaning to life. The 1993 Vienna declaration on human rights speaks of the right of all peoples (note the collective) freely to "pursue their economic, social and cultural development" and it stresses that "persons belonging to minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion...."

At the same time, especially in advanced democracies, the individual's right to dispose of his/her own body is held ever-more sacred: the right to make personal sexual choices, to change gender, and indeed to end one's own life.

The awkward thing is that all cultures and religions have things to tell us about what we should do with our bodies, and our children's bodies. You can't believe unconditionally in both cultural rights and individual bodily rights, and the issue of circumcision is only one extreme case of that dilemma. In practice, most of us deal with that problem by gut feeling or intuition. Our intuition tells us that the circumcision of baby boys is probably okay, at worst harmless and culturally very important to some religions, while the excision practised on baby girls in some cultures certainly is not okay.

Determining what a their children should eat for dinner, how much time (if any) they are allowed to play video games, how much time they are required to study, and whether or not they attend religious services (as long as no harm comes to the children from said services) are rightly examples of "child rearing"/parenting.

boydogtruck - how ignorant can you be?
You said "Male circumcision has no such effect, as countless men can testify from personal experience. I know many will dispute it, but there is no, zero, nada, zilch scientific evidence that sexual desire or performance is affected by male circumcision, nor is there any physiological reason to think that it might. The foreskin is very lightly innervated"
For a start get your facts right - the foreskin IS highly innervated and plays a huge part in the full-on-as-nature-intended male orgasm. The glans (which many mistakenly believe to be the main source of sexual pleasure) is NOT the pleasure centre for the penis and itself requires deep stimulation, especially in the older, keratinized glans of the circumcised male.
The 20,000 receptors of the foreskin (which are almost entirely excised in the circumcision) provide the brain with the most fantastic sensory build up ahead of the orgasm, which allows the owner far more control of the orgasm and considerable and lingering sexual pleasure even before the final ejaculation.
If you havent got one, (which, clearly you don't), you could not possibly coneceive what you are missing out on.
And yes, there have been studies on the effect of circumcision on sexual pleasure in Scandinavia - search and you will find. The very first post on this comment section was from someone who gave some very illuminating and honest 'first hand' experience of the before and after effects of circumcision.
I too have personally counselled 2 young men who have suffered massively from poorly executed circs.
In one, circumcised as a late teenager to address a mild phimosis issue (which his doctor could have treated with topical steroid based creme), he reported a significant loss of sensation (he estimated he now has only one fifth of his pre-circ sensation) and could only reach orgasm through very intensive/rough manual stimulation a.k.a 'the death grip' or using a rough towel!
But his biggest regret was how he described the orgasm as being like an on/off light switch. His post-circ partners had all complained of his need for very rough sex and he admitted to regularly faking orgasms because in the majority of occasions he 'just couldn't get there'. Alas, there is nothing that can be done for him.
In the second subject I counselled, a handsome and athletic individual who was circumcised as an infant ("because my dad was"), had a somewhat botched job, with excessive and painful scarring, massive discoloration on the shaft, skin bridges and a small section of his glans missing.
In short, he HATED his penis, and he also suffered many of the issues cited by the first subject I mentioned along with massive confidence and relationship issues (despite being one of the best looking in his year group).
The effect this had on his well-being was massive and damaging, requiring therapy and some corrective surgery. He has also never forgiven his father. He has learned to live with what he has and has also got a wonderfully caring partner since his therapy, but he bitterly regrets that someone else, his own dad, could be so flippant in their disregard for his future welfare when he was an infant.
So there you have it. 3 real world examples of people whose lives have been negatively impacted by this barbaric practice.
I pity you that you have to spout such total rubbish in defense of something which is indefensible. Do a bit more research on the negative effects of this ritual and help to stop it ruining more boys' lives.

Dear Bluhorizon, with this comment you just disqualified yourself. You asked for documented child deaths after circumcision and I delivered them. The articles list more than just 2-3 dead (and not injured!) children.

I was not searching for a proof that circumcision should be illegal, I was looking for evidence that it does harm. As a reaction to your claim that the practice is medically not harmful or dangerous. Your statement is hereby refuted. So yes, it is the best I can do.

I can assure you that there are many cases of severe damage that are not documented due to the fact that in the concerned population physical or lethal consequences are not seen in relation to the practice. I am talking about tribal circumcision done in the bushes of South Africa and not in clinical environments. Over 30 young men died in the last 10 years (not enough for your moral standards to count?) and many had their penises amputated due to complications. It won't help to cite the articles, because you will still go on refusing evidence.

I find it strange how the same arguments have a different value for male circumcision and FGM/C: the practices are done for thousands of years by hundreds of millions of families, are deeply rooted in tradition and religion, and are crucial for the identity of the individual - as a Jew or Muslim or Man in the one case and as a Woman in the other. And yet FGM/C is rightfully declared as a violation of human rights while male circumcision is accepted as a harmless medical preventive and symbolic act.

But with the efforts in Sweden, Norway and other European countries we see that the acceptance of male circumcision is no longer undoubted. So, the "huge hue and cry" that you were missing for decades is there and growing. But that doesn't count either, right?

All of your examples save many lives in the real world. The same cannot be said for infants having parts of their genitals (male or female) removed. Seeing that the procedure is unnecessary, it should be banned for males as well as females.

...and slicing off their children's foreskin/labia/pinky toe is not "child rearing." While the potential of children who had their foreskin/labia/pinky toe cut off in infancy to grow up to be productive members of society is on the whole unaffected by that act (although for some it is tragically obliterated), that cannot be the sole litmus test of whether or not bans on such parental practices should be enforced. An infant whose genitalia are improperly handled by his or her parents in infancy's likelihood of growing up to be a productive member of society will not be altered by that act. However, that does not mean that parents should be allowed to do such a thing to their child. Why should this be banned but the forcible handling--and not only handling--but also slicing of a child's genitals (including pleasureable erogenous tissue) at their parents' wishes be allowed? An inquiry into culture/motivation/etc. is pointless--these things should not influence an analysis of any action performed on a child's genitalia.

boydogtruck - see my earlier post to you. And comparing the removal of healthy erogenous tissue from a non-consenting child to the straightening of teeth or vaccinations is preposterous. You forgot to mention the forced cutting of hair that children are subjected to!

Anytime you have to fall back on protection of ritual, you're in a bad way.
.
The argument that being against circumcision is somehow racist is foolish. There are plenty of rational reasons for being against irreversible surgical change to a minor. The question should be whether there is an adequate medical benefit. Religion should not enter into it. Rather, as with pretty much every other decision about children, the question should be whether the action would clearly benefit the child.
.
Since the jury seems to be out on that question, it makes sense to circumscribe circumcision until we're more sure. From what I've read,
a) circumcision limits HIV transmission. That's a benefit to society, not to the child, and therefore inadmissible.
b) circumcision enhances penile cleanliness and health. But there are other ways to handle this (education on how to wash) that are adequate until the child is a man and can make his own decisions.
c) in most cases, circumcision doesn't do any harm. Most men don't care, and weren't traumatized. But some men do care and were traumatized, and the survery is irreversible.
.
On the whole, then, it seems most logical to let men make decisions about themselves, not their sons.
.
In short, there's room for argument, but the facts we know are in favor of non-circumcision of boys.
.
Obviously I've disregarded the religious angle, but the idea that your parents should be able to slice off your body parts because of their religious beliefs seems to me a non-starter. What if some religion suggested cutting off little toes? Nobody really needs them. Or the appendix, on the argument that some get infected, and it's not that useful anyway. Most people would see that as horrible, not spiritual. So, best to stick with medical arguments.

So you're basically saying that simply by being born a boy, your parents have a right to do something "bad" to you in the most sensitive part of your body. You're trying to sound smart and fair, but you don't make much sense. Is it that hard to say that this should be illegal?

Those decisions are not irreversible. You seem to want to reduce the issue of circumcision down to simply one principle (as if it is only about consent or only about modification), but it is a combination of different principles that makes circumcision unethical and cutting your kid's hair perfectly ethical.

If I could, I would love to ban FGM along with Polio, high infant mortality, teenage pregnancy and above all else infant malnutrition. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to be able to ban these and wish that the problem would go away.

But me writing on the TE forums arm-chair quarter backing a ban would not stop the actual practice. Trust me it needs a whole lot more than saying "I BAN XYZ".

To BoyDogTruck, none of what you listed is a mutilation. The foreskin has 16 functions that we know of, has mechanical and immunological and sexual pleasure for both him and his partner. Get in touch with what the Council of EU and Europe's sexologists have said of the harms. Music can sooth the savage beast but it doesn't give an orgasm. BTW the 5most sensitive parts of the penis are cut off and of these 5 can elicit orgasm andmultiirgasm with the same erection by just quivering three fingers , 7 orgasms in 12 minutes ( Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project).

My personal beliefs are immaterial here. But if you insist I believe that every couple should undergo a strict medical checkup before trying to conceive to see what are the chances of a having a progeny with genetic disorders and if there is even a remote possibility the couple should not be allowed to reproduce. There should also be tests for financial stability and mental health to see if the parents are financially and mentally capable of child rearing. Also I expect them to put up a bond of $xx upfront before having a child so that in case it turns out that they prove themselves incapable of child rearing, the state has sufficient funds to give the kid a proper childhood. Divorces for parents with underage kids have negative impact on the child and should hence be outlawed.
But that is all personal belief. The reality is any regulation has implementation aspects and trying to micromanage every aspect of public life is not possible. While I personally condemn abortions as well as circumcisions but I would prefer to stay neutral on these. Might as well have certified abortion clinics and physicians doing the circumcisions rather than desperate people going to some illegal practitioner in a banned and outlawed market with more health risks than what would be if done in a legal setting.

The Supreme Court has ruled parents can martyr themselves but not their children. Do you think it okay to cut off part of someone's body without their permission? Without medical need, the matter is that simple.